Hmm. So what about the possibility of H. David Froning's higher dimensional rotation? I found an overview to the paper; http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/699/1/1168_1?isAuthorized=no
Is that good science?
And what of Heim theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
According to the snippet here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Heim_theory
Heim theory allows higher dimensional rotation by magnetic fields. This looks exactly like H. David Froning's proposition!
So what would that entail? I remember in the full paper, Froning described that using a conditioned electromagnetic field, coupled with the forces behind gravity and inertia, would polarize the vacuum around the spacecraft , rotating it into higher dimensional space, causing:
1. Decrease vacuum resistance to acceleration
2. Increased local speed of light, relative to bodies not in polarized space
So when the spacecraft passed light speed relative to non-polarized objects, it would vanish, then as it de-polarized, it would re-appear traveling slower than light near it's destination.
So what about interstellar micrometeorites, and atomic gas?
Would a Bussard ramjet work equipped with this, or would the interstellar gas "vanish" from the spacecraft 's perspective?
Or perhaps because the area around the spacecraft is polarized, then micrometeorites and interstellar gas would enter the polarized region, vanishing from nonpolarized space, and "appearing" to the spacecraft , almost identically to how it would behave when entering the region of space around an
Alcubierre drive, except instead of being caused by distortion of space, it's caused by polarization. Is this correct?
And what sort of energy would it take to do this? Say, how much energy per cubic meter per degree of rotation in higher dimensional space?...
Hard questions, I'm hoping there's someone that knows, or at least knows how to find out.
Dickfore said:
Well, tachyons (particles that travel faster than light) have to have imaginary mass, i.e. m^2 < 0. To see this, start with the square of the 4-momentum:
<br />
P^{\mu} P_{\mu} = \left(\frac{E}{c} \right)^2 - p^2 = (m c)^2<br />
and use Hamilton's equation of motion:
<br />
\mathbf{v} = \frac{\partial E}{\partial \mathbf{p}}<br />
to get the velocity of the particle.
Differentiate w.r.t.
p the first equation implicitly to get:
<br />
\frac{2}{c^2} E \mathbf{v} - 2 \mathbf{p} = 0 \Rightarrow \mathbf{v} = \frac{c^2 \mathbf{p}}{E}<br />
Therefore, to get v > c, we must have p > E/c, which means the 4-momentum is a spacelike 4-vector, and its square is negative. This justifies my initial claim.
One place where I have seen imaginary (rest) mass (or negative mass squared) is in
spontaneous symmetry breaking, such as the Higgs mechanism. Namely, the bare mass squared of the Higgs boson in the Standard model has a negative sign, making the Higgs boson a tachyon.
EDIT:
You may be interested in
Superfluid vacuum as an interesting possibility.
Imaginary masses in reality -that's a hard thing to intuitively understand, lol. But IIRC, mass comes as a result of waves in the Higgs field? But if Higgs are Tachyons then does that imply FTL travel is somehow possible? I'm not sure how you'd get real mass to do that, though.
Superfluid vacuum was interesting, though I think I got just a loose grasp. But from what I got, strictly speaking the Lorentz tranformations aren't exactly correct? I still don't see exactly how this would allow an FTL spacecraft , though H. David Froning's description of an FTL drive did include a superfluid vacuum.
Hurkyl said:
You're going to have to resort to, well, a fiction. I'm pretty sure the best shot of getting FTL within 100 years is some sort of unanticipated breakthrough, be it some physical theory we currently have no expectation of existing, discovery and reverse engineering of an alien FTL drive that operates under unknown principles, or the completely surprising discovery of a natural (and stable!) anomaly in space-time that allows travel along certain routes to be shorter than otherwise anticipated.
I'd only do that as an absolute last resort... Although physics is sure to be different in 100 years, I still want to investigate any possibility with currently understood and/or speculative physics.
sbrothy said:
It seems the OP is talking about "showing" and "visualizing", which makes me believe he/she intents this as a film of some sort. The problem with FTL in animated stories is that in books, you might handwave it with a hefty amount of technobabble but barring that - it's uphill. In a movie it's still just going to look like a big shiny portal og a gleaming phallic vehicle. :)
Anyway, I sincerely hope you are going to, or already did read this page:
Atomic Rockets.
I think it is a must for anyone thinking about writing anything set in space. (Or for anyone who just plan of having every sci-fi story ruined which
tvtropes.org will help you with just fine. :D
Nah, it's a written book. I've been to both those places (and why would you link me that horrible site?
http://xkcd.com/609/ lol, jk, it's great), and they're great sites, but I've seen a few experts on these forums and I was wondering what input they had to add. I'll look at their FTL pages, though.
And anyways, a good author knows many times more about the milieu of his fiction than what's on the pages ;)